The trans ban rewards religious prejudice. It does not enhance military readiness. The skills and success of trans military personnel currently serving prove the ban will squander investments in training and cumulative years of service…

Arguably, a ban on a group of individuals does have the potential to “enhance military readiness” if, by banning them, the military removes an impediment to readiness — say, hypothetically, the logistical gymnastics and moral ambiguity of integrating sexually confused individuals into the profession of combat arms. Further, the argument of “squandered…training” is — for the nth time — a laughable farce. People leave the US military every day with their valuable training in hand — some voluntarily, others not so much. The fact that someone has been “trained” at some cost to the taxpayer has no bearing on their ability — or their “right” — to serve in the military.

Johnson’s ignorance is on its most full display, however, when he personally accused President Trump of conceiving the ban:

I fear the ban for its inception and effect. The Twitter-born order to cast out trans troops is religious malpractice, military injustice, and politically motivated fraud. It must be fought.

As is obvious to anyone who has been associated with the US military, the ban on transgenders in the military was not an inception of President Trump. It was not conceived on Twitter. The order by President Trump is no more bigotry, injustice, or a “fraud” than was the same ban under President Obama (and every president preceding him).

“Fight it” if you want, but don’t pretend this is a Trumpian new world order.

The worst part is Johnson portraying this as “religious prejudice” and “religious malpractice.” It’s fairly easy to make a logical argument against normalizing transgenderism wholly apart from religion. It is Johnson, not President Trump, who tries to make it about religion.

But if you’re going to make it about religion, at least do so honestly. Contrary to Johnson’s assertions (and the machinations of the LGBT lobby), opposition to the concept of gender “fluidity” would be consistent with the tenets of most major religions — it would not be “malpractice” of them. Johnson may not like it, sure, but that doesn’t make it “prejudice.”

By contrast, Johnson is presenting himself as a “Christian” pastor — albeit for a “liberal,” “inclusive” church whose focus appears to be sexual. There is no foundation in the Christian Scripture for the kind of “erotic liberty” Johnson advocates, which condones sin and prioritizes “acceptance” over repentance. In a manner of speaking, it is Kevin Johnson — the self-styled homosexual Christian pastor — who is actually guilty of “malpractice” in the Christian faith.

The LGBT movement has made substantial efforts over the past few weeks to make it appear US military leadership is on their side. Likewise, the LGBT movement has attempted to make it appear the Christian faith supports their sexual agenda.

Why?

The US military is a tool to achieve their sociopolitical ends, and the Christian faith is their last obstacle.

2 comments

That he belongs to the United Church of Christ says it all, they are also one of the denominations that called for the boycott, divestment and sanctions against Israel. Not only are they apostate but anti-Semitic as well.